MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers frustrations  (Read 27803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: April 23, 2010, 07:52 »
0
if buyers need something really original they better check fine-art sites or Flickr, providing they've plenty of time in their hands...


lisafx

« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2010, 09:12 »
0

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes.  Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license.  You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will. 

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source!  It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them.  They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

« Reply #52 on: April 23, 2010, 09:15 »
0

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes.  Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license.  You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will. 

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source!  It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them.  They are NOT a source for stock imagery.
HI Lisa. Not every country has copyright laws. 1% of people are psychopaths. Have a nice day.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2010, 09:59 »
0

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes.  Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license.  You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will.  

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source!  It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them.  They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

Exactly Lisa, I even explained the microstock model to him, and explained that he could get an image in the same (terrible!) resolution he gets from google images, but legally, for only 2 dollars or thereabouts (maybe smallest size on istock, thought the price for the best res would be too much for him to take in, :P), which he can pay out of his own profits if the client doesn't want to, it's so little money.. but as far as I know he's still doing it.. and yes I think 'cowboy' is the term really, lol!!

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #54 on: April 23, 2010, 10:05 »
0
You know, I think a lot of this is because of what the web sites push the photographers to produce too, I think a lot of them maybe don't know how to handle a really creative/different upload, and possibly reject them because they are just not 'stock' looking.. maybe.. but then how can they evolve, they just keep approving what worked in the 90's and 00's with no real progression in the stock look/feel..

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #55 on: April 23, 2010, 10:40 »
0
of all the evils done by google, google Images is certainly the worst !

just think what people could do without google images ... bloggers would go nuts and resort to Flickr ... others would start browsing stealing from other blogs or googling "free images".

image search should be BANNED right away as it's de-facto a piracy tool promoting piracy and theft !

as for rock bottom designers, they never paid for fonts as well, and 90% of their designs and templates are probably stolen or copied from somebody else.

there's a huge market for pirated artwork. stock photos, and any gfx on the web.

if every designer really paid for pics and anything else we would be rich now.

« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2010, 10:46 »
0
[I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes.  Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license.  You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will. 

I recently had a local aerial/dish installer do a job for me. I complimented him on his web site, which is how I'd found him, and it turned out that he'd had one of those letters from Getty demanding something like $15K and/or massive legal retribution for the unauthorised use of one of their images on his site (a picture of a workman on top of a roof). The bloke himself knew nothing about stock imagery or how it worked. He'd simply paid a local "designer" to produce his website for him and had no idea where the images had been sourced from but assumed the price he paid had included their legitimate use. There must be a lot of dodgy developers about even in the most developed economies.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2010, 10:57 »
0
I know what you are saying. The only thing you can do is to go to the different stock image sites and search for exclusive images or exclusive photographers. Too many sites have too many of the same images and after 5 or 6 pages I know what I'm going to see - same old, same old. I feel like I know some of those models by name. I'm not searching for the cheapest image, but the most unique and those are getting harder and harder to find.
On istock, you can go into advanced search and tick to search on exclusive only, then at least you won't see the same images elsewhere. For example, there are 196767 with the keyword 'business'.

Yeah!  trouble is, theyre no better then the others, just exclusivity isnt enough Im afraid. Trouble is in todays stock-files, it doesnt matter the slightest if its exclusive, RM,RF, Micro or whatever, the overwhelming majority of files are no better or worse, unless its specialized categories.

best.
The OP mentioned that 'too many of the sites have too many of the same images", and that was the issue I was addressing.

« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2010, 12:13 »
0
of all the evils done by google, google Images is certainly the worst !

just think what people could do without google images ... bloggers would go nuts and resort to Flickr ... others would start browsing stealing from other blogs or googling "free images".

image search should be BANNED right away as it's de-facto a piracy tool promoting piracy and theft !
You can't be serious?

Google image search is great. You can find where your images are being used, clients can find you to hire you for freelance work and don't even get me started on it's use as an easy resource library. Sure, people can use it to steal things, but that's why watermarks were invented. The positives completely outweigh the negatives.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2010, 13:01 »
0
they would find me with google WEB search as they did before google images was launched.

and in any case if your pics are on sale in the right places they will find you anyway.

besides, most of the portfolio sites of the best photographers are in flash therefore not indexed
by google images.
and yet they've no problems getting clients into their sites.

« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2010, 13:17 »
0
Our site, http://graphicleftovers.com has a pretty unique portfolio of images. We don't sell any photos that require a model release, so that knocks out you recognizing the models in our photo shots! Our photos are more objects, foods, scenery, etc. and we have tons of vectors...I don't know if there are a lot of "niche" stock sites out there besides the site, photocast.com, mentioned earlier but we hope to have the different stuff buyers are looking for. There are so many images out there now that it's nice to be able to organize them into smaller niches for people looking for non-mainstream or most popular stuff while keeping it affordable...

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2010, 13:27 »
0
[I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes.  Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license.  You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will. 

I recently had a local aerial/dish installer do a job for me. I complimented him on his web site, which is how I'd found him, and it turned out that he'd had one of those letters from Getty demanding something like $15K and/or massive legal retribution for the unauthorised use of one of their images on his site (a picture of a workman on top of a roof). The bloke himself knew nothing about stock imagery or how it worked. He'd simply paid a local "designer" to produce his website for him and had no idea where the images had been sourced from but assumed the price he paid had included their legitimate use. There must be a lot of dodgy developers about even in the most developed economies.

God yeah, there are cowboys everywhere.. the worst part is they price down so hard (some not even registered for any kind of tax), that the customer doesn't understand why your price is double.. I would imagine people get caught ALL the time, and I'm glad, cowboys ruin any trade they decide to infiltrate, whether it's roofing or graphic design (although in roofing a lot more dangerous to hire one!!!!). End of the day you can pay for a cowboy or pay for a professional, and if you pay 400 quid (or whatever price is lowest of the low) for your web site this kind of thing is going to happen.. people are always shocked though, and then you ask them how much they paid for the job and it's like well, you shouldn't be shocked really, what did you expect at that price?

Thanks Danoph I'll take a browse! :)

« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2010, 13:38 »
0
Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source!  It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them.  They are NOT a source for stock imagery.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people who truly believe they can use anything they find in the internet.  Its a huge misconception, but a common one.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2010, 14:32 »
0
Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source!  It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them.  They are NOT a source for stock imagery.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people who truly believe they can use anything they find in the internet.  Its a huge misconception, but a common one.

and why should they bother ?

google never gave a sh.. about writing clearly that ALL images apart rare cases are copyrighted and need a permission for re-use.

after all google is the biggest thief on the web, see what they're airing on youtube and it's 99% illegal.

« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2010, 16:08 »
0


.. but as far as I know he's still doing it.. and yes I think 'cowboy' is the term really, lol!!


i think you're confusing cowboys with pirates & hedge fund managers!


macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #65 on: April 24, 2010, 05:24 »
0
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :


« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2010, 09:13 »
0
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :



And how many of them are model-released? Micros cater mostly to commercial use.


hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2010, 09:20 »
0
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :



And how many of them are model-released? Micros cater mostly to commercial use.


Not to mention the 'Bud light' ads in the background, in fact the whole thing looks like a pretty cool Bud light advert.. are they selling this as commercial? Never gonna happen, maybe a nice editorial news image, even then Bud are getting some nice free advertising out of it..

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2010, 09:32 »
0
isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

No, why would that be ironic?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

They are clearly marked as no MR, no PR and RM, not RF. The Alamy terms then put the onus on the buyer to know how they may use the image, though that's something support can help with.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 10:04 by ShadySue »

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #69 on: April 24, 2010, 09:34 »
0
yeah, in the meantime the photographer pocketed at least 100 bucks for this image.

maybe it can be shocking for you to discover that MOST of the images you see in magazines and newspapers
have no model release and plenty of logos/trademarks and have been sold on RM agencies.

THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.

numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 09:36 by macrosaur »

« Reply #70 on: April 24, 2010, 09:57 »
0
maybe it can be shocking for you to discover that MOST of the images you see in magazines and newspapers
have no model release and plenty of logos/trademarks and have been sold on RM agencies.

Wow, that is shocking!  Oh wait, I do know the difference between an editorial and commercial license (both of which can be found RM, RF and micro).  I  guess I'm not that shocked.

Quote
THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.

numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.

Dinosaurs tend to make up %84 of statistics they use.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #71 on: April 24, 2010, 10:05 »
0

THAT's exactly the very bug limit of RF and microstock actually.
numerically, advertising/commercial is probably 5% of the whole stock industry cake, despite being the highest paying slice.

Dinosaurs tend to make up %84 of statistics they use.

LOL!

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #72 on: April 24, 2010, 11:58 »
0
fine, but grab today's copy of your local paper and check out the credits ... most of them
will be wire services like AP/AFP/Reuters/Getty and the rest of the gang will be RM.

how many come from istock or SS ?

« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2010, 13:05 »
0
Most of what I see is local work by STL photogs, non-local stuff from the wire, and feature photos or illos are from SS.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #74 on: April 24, 2010, 13:11 »
0
Most of what I see is local work by STL photogs, non-local stuff from the wire, and feature photos or illos are from SS.

then you live "in the wild".


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
11472 Views
Last post December 31, 2007, 12:36
by Beckyabell
6 Replies
3336 Views
Last post June 16, 2008, 21:17
by tan510jomast
48 Replies
15363 Views
Last post July 26, 2015, 13:24
by LesPalenik
7 Replies
3301 Views
Last post August 30, 2016, 05:14
by increasingdifficulty
0 Replies
131 Views
Last post March 07, 2024, 03:10
by StockedMedia

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors